Shouldn't we be rooted when we attack? Shouldn't a nage that wants to train at such a level understand how to "uproot" uke - rather than having uke be "unrooted" from the get-go? Being led too is something that I think is a bit different from how I try to understand the words "committed attack". Perhaps then we are thinking about the word differently and/or at least in terms of different degrees.

For me, being led as uke by nage, and committing in an "unrooted" fashion, is all part of the first type of training I mentioned above - where uke is more consciously making present certain forces that would be present naturally under the full-commitment (assuming correct form is present) of both nage and uke. Under this type of training, I think one can, at least in time, just get used to finding that happy middle ground between attacking and taking ukemi - but I would say that that happy middle ground has little to do with actual committed attacks and/or what I felt Janet was right in problematizing.

I am thinking this is probably a topic that is too ambiguous to tackle over the Internet - I imagine we all have different understandings of what "commitment" means and where that falls in non-choreographed training, etc.